Question for dem Dems

Apparently in Florida Democrat PACS and large contributors are posting their own pro-Gingrich anti-Romney ads. Two questions. First, do you think that is because the feel Mr Gingrich is a weaker opponent against Mr Obama or is it because they actually prefer him as a possible President. If you thought it was the former, and not the latter, why do you think that supporting a person who you think is less fit for office is your patriotic duty? If you think that it is likely that the answer was the former how do you then explain the lack of objections to this tactics on left leaning blogs?

3 comments

I believe all of the serious money going for Gingrich is money that actually likes Gingrich.

As for the ethics of supporting someone only because you think it might increase the odds of the party losing in the general election. It probably is ethical. Just imagine the Evil Party(tm) has two people running in the primary. The first is a reincarnated Adolf Hitler….gone is the funny facial hair, he looks like a chisled Ken Doll and has great appeal to the general public. The other is the anti-Christ, but he appears as fat, unattractive, just totally unattractive to the general public.

You deem that if Hitler wins, he will kill 60% of humanity, the anti-christ 90%. So clearly Hitler in this case is ‘more fit’ than the anti-christ. In this case though supporting the anti-Christ works because it ensures Obama wins and no one gets slaughtered.

The game theory here is complicated by the fact that the general voter is incorporating not only who he thinks is better but the fact that it’s a two stage race where you can’t be in the general election without first winning the primary.

I know the simple game theory that this is a two stage race in which one part is only participating (this year) in one stage. I’m asking about the morality of gaming and trying to throw the other sides race (which arguably you have no right to participate in if you are of the other party) for a person who if he wins the final stage would be worse … Or to put in perspective of your example. When the A/C wins the general election, you having decided to campaign against the less bad but more electable A/H, how do you justify your support for the candidate you felt was a poorer choice, some complicated game theory thing.

Why isn’t the simpler game, we want each party to have the candidate best fit to be President in the general election not what is ultimately better for the country? And that not working for that alternative is not ethical.

I’m asking about the morality of gaming and trying to throw the other sides race (which arguably you have no right to participate in if you are of the other party) for a person who if he wins the final stage would be worse

Consider my hypothetical where the anti-christ is objectively the worse candidate of all to win the overall election but winning the nomination ensures 60% of humanity won’t be killed by Hitler winning the general election. It seems both rational and ethical to play the game.

As for ‘no right to participate’…not sure what you’re talking about. Your side fought tooth and nail to gut campaign finance regulation on the grounds that money = speech. All dirty tricks are now acceptable by your philosophy.I think you’re overestimating the Democratic potential in Gingrich’s surge. I suggest you look at Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, casino mogul billionaire who have made the largest political donation in history, $15M, to Gingrich and it seems they did so because, well they like Gingrich. I suppose $100K here or there may be from some game theory playing Dems but I don’t think it’s relevant here. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-super-pac-citizens-united_n_1233372.html)

Onto the theory side:

I’m asking about the morality of gaming and trying to throw the other sides race (which arguably you have no right to participate in if you are of the other party) for a person who if he wins the final stage would be worse

Consider my hypothetical where the anti-christ is objectively the worse candidate of all to win the overall election but winning the nomination ensures 60% of humanity won’t be killed by Hitler winning the general election. It seems both rational and ethical to play the game.

As for ‘no right to participate’…not sure what you’re talking about. Your side fought tooth and nail to gut campaign finance regulation on the grounds that money = speech. All dirty tricks are now acceptable by your philosophy.

Why isn’t the simpler game, we want each party to have the candidate best fit to be President in the general election not what is ultimately better for the country? And that not working for that alternative is not ethical.

Well clearly in the case I presented that doesn’t have to be the case as the hypothetical demonstrates. So the problem doesn’t seem to be how people play the game but the rules of the game itself.

Maybe a solution would be to follow something like NYC. There you have at least 4 parties (Dems, Reps, but also Progressive and Conservative Party). Often a politican may run with multiple endorsements (for example, Republican and Conservative). The number of votes determine the winner but the votes under party banners decide things like the party’s placement on the ballot in the next election.

There if a Republican isn’t quite conservative enough, the Conservative Party may have a different person on their line and vice versa. In that model, it would be easier to have multiple people making serious bids in the ultimate election.